[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just close by 
discussing a few of the items that the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada brought up.
  First of all, when a mayor is facing a cut in a city budget, the 
mayor does not come in and cut the police department. The mayor looks 
for the nonessential spending items. In fact, many mayors in this 
country would be happy to have only a 7.5-percent cut in their budgets.
  So the answer is not to talk about shutting down the Library of 
Congress or the Capitol Police or casework.
  I have cut 20 percent from my own office budget voluntarily because I 
thought that was the right thing to do. We answer the mail. We do 
casework. We are very attentive to our State.
  I think the people of Texas are well served because they know that I 
am doing what every one of them has had to do at some point in their 
business or in their households, and that is cut their budget 5, 10, 
15, or 20 percent. But we are only asking today for a 7.5-percent cut 
in the offices of Congressmen and Senators, and the money it takes to 
run the Capitol and pass the laws for our land.
  A number of businesses are living with a lot of the mandates and laws 
that Congress has passed. So, when the Senator from Nevada talks about 
Congress having more expenses because we have to live within our 
legislative mandates, the businesses of this country know what he is 
talking about. But they do not have the ability to just increase their 
budgets, they have to pay for those mandates by cutting in other areas. 
And that is what we in Congress must do. We must prioritize our 
spending.
  Our amendment does not eliminate anything. It does not eliminate the 
General Accounting Office or the Office of Technology Assessment. It is 
an overall cap on spending. It cuts $200 million for fiscal year 1995, 
and more thereafter. The total cut from the baseline is $2.4 billion 
over 5 years.
  I think if the American people have a choice of whether to keep their 
tax dollars or whether we mortgage the future of our children and 
grandchildren--we have some of these committees that we could cut back 
or franked newsletters that maybe they do not need--they are going to 
choose to keep the money that they work so hard to earn. They may want 
to take the kids on a vacation or buy them shoes, or whatever the 
family decides to do with their money.
  Last night I was very impressed with Senator Ford. Senator Ford is 
the head of the Administration Committee, and he was looking at the 
costs that our being in session at 3:30 this morning was costing the 
taxpayers of America. He was trying to cut the printing costs from our 
Congressional Record, and he was looking at the light costs and the 
staff costs. I admire him, and I think he is right to do that, and I am 
glad that the people of America know that Senator Ford is looking out 
for their taxpayer dollars.
  Most businesses in America have had to cut 7.5 percent from their 
budgets at some point. Most homes in America have had to do the same 
thing. I think it is time for Congress to show leadership, to show we 
are serious about budget cuts and say that we can do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. REID. What is the matter before the body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter is the Hutchison amendment No. 
1532, and the Senator has asked for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would just briefly respond.
  The assumptions that we received from the Senator's office that was 
passed out with this amendment on March 22, 1994, at 11:35 a.m. 
indicate that there would be these significant cuts. I did not make 
these up. This is information we got from her office. These are 
assumptions she made.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let us take the General Accounting Office. 
If we do follow the assumptions of the Senator from Texas that we do a 
25-percent cut in addition to the 600 people we already cut from GAO, 
how much Government waste, fraud, and abuse will occur as a result of 
the General Accounting Office, our watchdog being unable to discover 
fraud, waste, and abuse within the Federal Government on all levels of 
Government?
  I am working with one of my colleagues to take a look at the Federal 
Reserve Board. The General Accounting Office is the only body equipped 
to do that. It is very difficult, very time consuming, and my colleague 
and I have a tremendous interest in this.
  If there is a 25-percent cut of the staff of GAO, that will never 
happen.
  What about the problems we have in the military of excessive 
contracting? We know the money that has been saved and people have gone 
to jail as a result of the work of the General Accounting Office.
  Mr. President, I would also talk about franked newsletters. In the 
U.S. Senate there are no franked newsletters. We do not have the money. 
In the U.S. Senate each Senator does not have enough money to mail one 
letter to each of his or her constituents.
  So I say how in the world could we send newsletters? We cannot. There 
is not enough money.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield on the time of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want the Senator from Nevada to 
understand that the Senate minority Budget Committee prepared a draft 
of possible ways that the cuts could be made. These are not my 
priorities, and I did not distribute this. I would not make some of 
these cuts. I would have a different list of priorities. This amendment 
is an overall budget cut of the general Government function, and that 
is all.
  So it is a mistake, and I am sure it is just a misunderstanding to 
say that it is part of this amendment to make the cuts that the Senator 
is suggesting.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would respond to my friend from Texas that 
all I am doing is reading a document that says Senator Hutchison is 
reducing funding from the legislative branch that was passed out 
Tuesday. That is where the document was obtained.
  It is easy to say, ``I make other cuts.'' The fact of the matter this 
is the guide.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding to me.
  I was not here for all of the presentation by the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison]. However, I heard enough to know that she just showed 
up in Congress a little late with respect to cutting franking. The 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], has been cutting and cutting and 
cutting our franking, or mailing, budgets in recent years.
  The franking budgets in both the House and the Senate used to be far 
more substantial than they are now. We have cut our franking spending 
radically.
  Second, let me respond to the possibility of cuts to the General 
Accounting Office. I think it would not be a thoughtful exercise to 
suggest that we cut 25 percent more from the General Accounting Office, 
in addition to what we have already cut. The GAO is crucial to the 
ability of Congress to ferret out Government waste.
  Let me give you one example. Do you know that the Defense Department 
decided to buy some ant bait? That is right, ant bait to kill ants--
they wanted to buy 27,000 dollars' worth of ant bait. Do you know how 
long it took them to buy ant bait? It took 29 pages of procurement 
regulations and 270 days to buy 27,000 dollars' worth of ant bait.
  Who helps us discover that sort of absurdity, that kind of grotesque 
waste, that bizarre purchasing behavior? The GAO. The General 
Accounting Office is worth billions and billions of dollars in savings 
to American taxpayers.
  So I would only say that if we believe that we are serving the 
taxpayers' interest by cutting 25 percent from the General Accounting 
Office, in addition to the personnel cuts the GAO has already suffered, 
we are not saving anybody anything. We are costing the American 
taxpayers billions and billions of dollars more by not being able to 
discover that trying to buy ant bait ties us up in knots. We are buying 
cream-filled cookies with 16 pages of regulations. We need the General 
Accounting Office to help us discover what is going on in the executive 
branch when it spends $1.5 trillion.
  I want to emphasize this point. There have been sustained budget cuts 
in congressional spending under the leadership of the Senator from 
Nevada.
  With respect to franking, Senator Reid has successfully led the fight 
to substantially reduce the franking budget.
  It is easy to talk about cutting these things, but the proof is what 
has been done here in the Senate. And I just rise to compliment the 
Senator from Nevada on his real budget cuts, which have made a 
difference in the legislative branch appropriations.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
North Dakota, who is also one of the leaders in the Congress for fiscal 
constraint and saving money. No one that I know of has done a better 
job of articulating the need for this country to cut its spending than 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield, I would just like to set 
the record straight, Mr. President.
  My office did not distribute the allocations that both Senators have 
mentioned. There are suggestions that were made by the Senate Minority 
Budget Committee as to some of the ways that the cuts could be made. I 
do not know if these are the committee's priorities. And I am sure that 
the Senator from Nevada, who has a record, I am told, of fiscal 
responsibility, would set the priorities and that the priorities would 
be correct. But again, these are not my priorities at all. This is a 
cut in the General Government function.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. The Senator and I would yield back our time; is that right?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like a few minutes before the 
time is yielded back, if I could.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield from our side to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield time to the 
Senator from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield]?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize. I did not see the senior member 
of the minority of the Appropriations Committee here or I certainly 
would not have called for yielding back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized, Mr. 
Hatfield.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Could I have about 6 or 7 minutes?
  Mr. REID. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 13 minutes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Oregon can consume whatever time up to 13 
minutes that he desires.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to reserve the right to close after the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] has finished his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the Senator from Texas has 30 
minutes under her control and the Senator from Oregon is yielded the 
remainder of the time under the control of Senator Reid.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent, if the Senator from Oregon does 
not consume the entire amount, that I might be allowed to use part of 
the remaining time of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we get into these exercises of 
contesting who can cut most--who can cut here, who can cut there--and 
we think we are going to get a lot of political brownie points from the 
public or the constituents out of this great budget-slashing activity.
  Well, I think there is always a threshold between responsible 
budgeting and irresponsible budgeting. I think this amendment is 
irresponsible. And I say that because the chairman of our subcommittee, 
the Senator from Nevada, has already demonstrated the overall picture 
of what has been happening in the past 3 or 4 years of reducing the 
legislative branch expenditures. Let me say, Mr. President, there is no 
other subcommittee that can take the kind of pride in true responsible 
budget cutting than the legislative subcommittee.
  Now we reach a threshold of whether we are responsible or 
irresponsible. I want to say that there is not a Senator here on this 
floor that cannot move ahead unilaterally and do all the budget cutting 
they want in this legislative branch by cutting their own offices. No 
one is precluded from cutting their office. If they think they can 
operate on this kind of reduction at their offices, go ahead and cut 
it.
  There are a number of Senators who have turned back unexpended, 
unobligated funds from their personal office budget. Nobody is being 
forced to spend this money under this legislative branch appropriation 
bill that relates to their own office.
  If one is on a committee and they can move and get the support of the 
committee to cut the budget, cut the committee budget. There is no one 
preventing them from doing that.
  This big display about a big amendment on the floor that is going to 
balance the budget or lead us to that wonderful rosy tomorrow when the 
budget is balanced by taking these unnecessary, irresponsible slashes 
at the legislative branch is not really, in my view, seeking to do the 
best for the Congress or for the budget process.
  Let me take one example: The Library of Congress.
  Mr. President, in the old days, when invading armies hit a city or a 
country, instead of going to the television stations to capture the 
television stations, which they did not have in those ancient days, 
they went to the library. That is where they went. The invading armies 
went to the libraries, the source of information and knowledge, and 
they took control of the libraries.
  Well, those libraries are as vital and important to civilization 
today as they were in those ancient times.
  Let me just read from the record. We have already reduced the Library 
of Congress by $142.537 million and 854 personnel.
  I would like to know how much advantage the Members of this Senate 
that are promoting this particular budget cut, how much advantage they 
have taken of the CRS, the Congressional Research Service of the 
Library of Congress? If they are really sincere about wanting to move 
this budget down on the Library of Congress, let us see us take the 
initiative by reducing our demands on the Library of Congress.
  Now, we might say, well, that may not be a category included in the 
amendment. But, Mr. President, let us be honest about this. If you have 
this kind of reduction from the legislative branch, the Library of 
Congress is going to have to take a further reduction.
  You can tell the public's reaction when we had to restrict the hours 
of the Library of Congress. It is the old story: ``Don't cut the things 
that I am interested in.'' Cutting the hours of the Library was very 
highly resented, but they had to be cut because of the budgetary 
reductions our committee has imposed upon the Library.
  Mr. President, we are in arrearages of that Library of catching up 
the titles, the thousands of titles that are put into that Library 
every year. We have been moving very carefully on bringing up that 
backlog over a period of time. This will further, then, push us back in 
time of those arrearages.
  Now those arrearages are not just a matter of making it more 
convenient to have access to the Library for people here in Washington. 
Every library in the country depends on the currency and access to the 
information of the Library of Congress. Starting with Dan Boorstin and 
others following him, they have moved this Library of Congress out of 
Washington, DC, in terms of the access of local communities and States 
across this country, accessing that great treasure of information and 
knowledge, the greatest in the world.
  If you look at the program we have had on preservation, we are losing 
books year after year all across this country because of the acid ink 
used on the paper. They have been disintegrating at an ever-increasing 
rate. We have been trying a very carefully designed program of 
preservation. It is not just in the books; it is in the film, it is in 
the photographs, it is in the records. It is in all the multiple means 
of preserving history we have in our Library. We cannot afford to let 
that get ahead of us as we have in the past. We are trying to catch up 
as it is.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment is rejected at this time, 
knowing the committee has done its work and is continuing to do its 
work in reducing the legislative branch expenditures. They are doing it 
on a careful basis, not on some amendment that has been put together by 
a couple of staff people maybe within the last half-hour or day or two, 
and thrown up here on the floor where there has been no analysis.
  I would like to take the Senator into a colloquy, to go into the 
dollar-by-dollar analysis of this proposed cut--I will restrain my 
desire to do so--because I have the records here, where we have moved 
on those cuts. I know of their careful consideration, through hearings 
and testimony, that has not been accessed here on the floor--at least 
not to my knowledge. I have not seen any such Senators around our 
committee process. Yet all of a sudden we come up here with a great 
amendment that is going to save money for the legislative branch.
  My simple description of this amendment comes back to the word 
``irresponsible.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from North Dakota has 
4 minutes 56 seconds remaining. The Senator from Texas has 30 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me follow the remarks of the Senator from Oregon by 
saying that I have spent a lot of time on the issue of Government 
waste. In this body and also over in the House of Representatives I 
have voted continually to cut and cut and cut. I will continue to do 
that. The recent rating that came out rating Members' proclivity to 
favor cuts shows I rank number five on this side of the aisle in the 
U.S. Senate, in voting to cut spending.
  I have spent about 2 years working on a waste project, identifying 
$83 billion in waste that we can target to reduce Federal spending. So 
I do not take a back seat to anybody on the question of whether we 
should cut spending. Of course we should. We ought to continue spending 
on things that work and cut spending on things that waste.
  My concern is, it is all too easy not only to join but also in some 
cases lead, those who want to create an impression that the Congress is 
a real cesspool of excess.
  There are plenty of blemishes, plenty of problems, plenty of things 
wrong with Congress. But we actually have fewer people working in the 
legislative branch today than we did in 1980. That is just a fact--
fewer people working in the legislative branch of Government today than 
we did in 1980. We have cut.
  I mentioned the franking. The Senator from Nevada has led the effort 
on franking. I was surprised when I came to the Senate to see what had 
happened to the franking budget. It is substantially below what it was. 
It was cut substantially time after time.
  I mentioned previously, when I spoke about the value of the General 
Accounting Office, that we spend $1.5 trillion in the Federal 
Government. The GAO is our watchdog. How many in this room know that in 
the inventory down in the Department of Defense are 1.2 million bottles 
of nasal spray? There are 1.2 million bottles of nasal spray in 
inventory at DOD. Do you know how many years of runny noses it would 
take to consume 1.2 million bottles of nasal spray?
  How do we know they wasted money in inventory mismanagement that way? 
The GAO. The GAO helps us find out how do you spend the taxpayers' 
money. We appropriate the $1.5 trillion money and then someone else 
spends it. I do not disrespect anybody's motives. I think everybody has 
a right to offer amendments on anything. But I urge that we not try to 
beat up on the institution of the Congress. We need the resources 
necessary to do our job. We have brought to this floor, from a 
subcommittee under the leadership of the Senator from Nevada, proposals 
that cut spending in real terms. These are proposals that are 
thoughtful, that move in the right direction, and cause us to tighten 
our belts when we ask others to tighten their belts. That is a fact.
  But what we ought to do is make sure we also fund our obligations, 
make sure the $1.5 trillion we spend of the taxpayers' money is spent 
wisely. That is embodied also in a significant part of the legislative 
branch funding.
  I am going to vote against this amendment. This amendment has nothing 
to do with Government waste. I vote against Government waste and will 
vote to cut the legislative branch. But I will not vote for an 
amendment that seems to imply the major problem in Federal spending is 
in the legislative branch. The fact is--let me repeat it--there are 
fewer people working for the legislative branch today than there were 
14 years ago. Why? Because we have had substantial cuts in the 
legislative branch. The Senator from Nevada has led us in this effort. 
And I am proud of that. I will continue to participate in that. But 
this is an amendment that, in my judgment, is not worthy of our 
support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I would like to close on this 
amendment. All of the problems of the Federal Government are not 
embodied right here in the legislative branch, but if we are going to 
ask the people of America to accept higher taxes or fewer services, and 
if we are going to ask the people who work in our Federal agencies and 
Departments to cut back and to watch expenditures, I think Congress 
should lead the way. We are talking about a $200 million cut from a 
$2.3 billion budget. We have not cut the budget of the legislative 
branch from the $2.3 billion level for the last 3 years. It has been 
relatively the same. In fact, I do not know how many people were 
working here in 1980, but in 1983 the budget was $1.3 billion. In 1993, 
it was $2.3 billion. That is not a decrease; it is a 95 percent 
increase in the budget.
  The arguments we hear are like the Washington Monument syndrome. It 
goes like this: ``If you cut the Federal budget, we are going to have 
to shut down the Washington Monument.'' Opponents always pick the most 
visible expenditure to fight losing their debate.
  I think maybe we should cut nasal spray from the Department of 
Defense, Senator Dorgan. It looks like maybe we found a budget cut. I 
appreciate that being brought forward. We should make every cut in 
unnecessary spending we can to balance the budget.
  It is very important that we take the lead and show that we can do 
what most businesses in this country and most households in this 
country have been able to do. That is, cut 7.5 percent of discretionary 
spending by prioritizing and making sure we fund what we need to fund, 
but returning to the taxpayers of America $2.4 billion over the next 5 
years. I really think it is a small step for us, and a very important 
one, to show we are going to balance this budget and we are not going 
to give the bill to our children and our grandchildren.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields her time. The Senator from 
Nevada has 25 seconds left.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, that is the whole point. The Senator from 
Texas has missed that. We have already done what we are asking the 
American public to do. That is the whole point. That is why we made all 
these cuts, and I have outlined those today, in franking and the 
general expenditures of this legislative body.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 6 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. REID. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                       Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
the pending Hutchison amendment be yielded back; that the pending 
Hutchison amendment be temporarily laid aside to be disposed of 
following the Mack amendment, No. 1571; that no amendments be in order 
to the Hutchison amendment or to the language proposed to be stricken 
by the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has already been yielded back. Is 
there objection to the remainder of the request? Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Texas, who has been with us a rather short time in chronology but is a 
wonderfully active participating Member of the U.S. Senate. She feels 
strongly about this issue. Many of us may not concur, but it is 
certainly important that she has presented it and done it in a very 
commendable way.
  And I thank the Senator from Nevada for his generosity and courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 1573

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1573.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 5, line 22, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $22,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $33,600,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $46,200,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $22,400,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $33,600,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $46,200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 7, line 9, decrease the amount by $15,200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 10, decrease the amount by $37,600,000,000.
       On page 7, line 11, decrease the amount by $71,200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $117,400,000,000.
       On page 8, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 8, line 8, decrease the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 8, line 9, decrease the amount by $22,400,000,000.
       On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by $33,600,000,000.
       On page 8, line 11, decrease the amount by $46,200,000,000.
       On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 9, line 15, decrease the amount by $8,100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, decrease the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 9, line 17, decrease the amount by $19,500,000,000.
       On page 9, line 18, decrease the amount by $26,500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $3,700,000,000.
       On page 28, line 10, decrease the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 28, line 17, decrease the amount by $9,700,000,000.
       On page 28, line 24, decrease the amount by $13,900,000.
       On page 30, line 21, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 3, decrease the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 31, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 31, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 31, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 18, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 34, line 1, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 34, line 9, decrease the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 34, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 34, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I have never really been much into 
charts, but the principal manager of the bill, the Senator from 
Tennessee, has presented me with a remarkable instrument which as you 
keep pulling on, suddenly you have this remarkable pointer. I 
appreciate Senator Sasser furnishing me this remarkable thing because I 
want to share with you some interesting charts.
  The basis of these charts is a powerful literary work of my friend 
Pete Peterson and the support of the Concord Coalition. Remember, the 
Concord Coalition was started by two people who have been deeply 
respected in this body. I served with both of them: Senator Paul 
Tsongas, of Massachusetts, a magnificent man. I enjoyed him so. Still 
do. Indeed he is very vital. And Senator Warren Rudman, just a dear, 
dear friend. They are doing things as united Republicans and Democrats 
because the rest of us do not do them, and I do not either. We all talk 
a great game. That is all we do--is talk a great game.
  So let me just acquaint my colleagues with a few things on these 
charts. Most of this will not be news to anybody because people like 
Senator Sasser and Senator Domenici have in one way or another been 
alerting us to this for years.
  So it will not be news. But at some level in the human psyche, in 
some dim, dark recess of our minds, we know all of the truths about 
Federal spending--where it has been, where it is going. But we do not 
like to talk about it. It is too, too painful. We do not like to 
confront it even though it is our responsibility to do so. Instead, we 
take refuge in old canards about, ``Why do we not do something?'' That 
is marvelous.
  Or our constituents say, ``Why don't you do what you get paid to do; 
you should vote the tough votes.'' You vote the tough votes and your 
constituents retire you.
  That is an interesting conflict. There were several in this body who 
cast tough votes in 1985 when we froze the entire Federal budget, cut 
everything on Earth except Social Security but let it go up only 2 
percent, and in the next election period, six of our Members 
disappeared like squash vines in the wintertime. The ads in the paper 
were: ``Here is the squirrel who took your Social Security. Here is the 
guy who cut your veterans benefit. Here is the guy who took your 
railroad retirement.''
  So who is to do the heavy lifting? It is a representative Government. 
People must like it that way. So we take refuge in those things.
  Then they ask us about congressional perks and what we are making. 
And then we say, ``Well, I pay my own Social Security, and I pay my own 
health insurance, and I pay 8 percent of my salary into a pension, 
instead of 7 like other Federal employees, so I do get more back. And I 
pay my mortgage, groceries, gas and oil. So what is it you think I get 
that you don't get?'' They say, ``I don't know, I just read it in the 
Reader's Digest, that's all I know,'' or ``I heard it over one of those 
talk shows.''
  That is not good enough.
  Then we have a field day talking about, ``Well, if we would just get 
rid of foreign aid, or Lawrence Welk's house in North Dakota, or the 
study of tsetse flies, or why sheep do what sheep do on the range''--
whatever it is. That is what you hear when you get home.
  I then say, ``Will somebody step up to the plate and tell me who will 
help me do `means testing' or `affluence testing' on--guess what--the 
Social Security cost-of-living allowance which was 7 billion bucks last 
year and goes out to people regardless of their net worth or their 
income? You can save a lot of tsetse fly studies, and all the rest of 
it, if you step up to the plate and do that.''
  When we even mention that, here comes the AARP, the Committee for the 
Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the 
Pink Panthers, and every other known organization, to fill our mail 
rooms to the brim with what we are doing cruelly to the aged and to the 
infirm, and so on.
  Foreign aid, that is a great one. It is 1 percent of the budget. It 
is less than 15 billion bucks out of a budget of 1 trillion 500 billion 
bucks, and half of it goes to Israel and Egypt, where it ought to go. 
The results are heartening there, even through the pain of recent 
times. The rest of it goes around the world, and some of it, yes, finds 
its way to despotic tinhorn dictators. But 40, 50 percent of it finds 
its way into the swollen belly of a starving child, and I will continue 
to vote for it as long as I am here.
  There is a vibrant and active and very tough constituency served by 
the entitlement programs of the United States, and that makes up the 
majority of our Federal budget. In deference to them, we remain 
relatively silent, at least when it comes to ``specifics.'' Oh, we are 
very good when it comes to generalities, but remain silent about 
specific ways to slow the truly huge spending increases. So I will hold 
my tongue for a bit about these energetic, spirited, often selfish, 
interest groups. I wish instead to use my time to lay out, very 
dispassionately, of course, the facts. It will not take but a few 
minutes.
  Here is one you do not want to miss--
  30 years ago, entitlement spending and interest payments together 
made up approximately one-third of the Federal budget. Today, they 
compose two-thirds of the Federal budget. Hear us when we say that 67 
percent of the budget of the United States goes out to the citizens 
without us ever casting a vote. Sixty-seven percent of the budget of 
the United States. is out the door without us ever stepping up to the 
plate and casting a vote. Try that one.
  So when we talk about cutting discretionary spending, we will never 
get there. We will not get to balanced budgets by cutting Amtrak or 
foreign aid. All this mandatory spending is going out the window. It is 
gone, leaving nothing there to cut in discretionary. You cannot get 
there.
  That is one I wanted to share with you.
  And then, not all entitlement programs have contributed equally to 
this tremendous spending explosion. The largest increases have come 
from three areas: Health care benefits, Federal pensions, and Social 
Security cash; together, those three areas. Federal spending in those 
areas has increased by 6.7 percent of GDP, gross domestic product, 
since 1965. Those are striking figures. These other things have not 
gone up like that. We think of food and housing benefits, unemployment 
and welfare cash, other nonretirement cash. That is not where the rise 
is. It is in health care, Federal pensions, and Social Security, 
period. Forget anything else. And we all know it. That is the part that 
is so curious.
  But here is the greatest myth of all time, that somehow this myth is 
that entitlement spending embodies Government assistance to ``the 
needy.'' Almost three-quarters of all entitlement spending is given out 
regardless of need. It goes out to people regardless of need or net 
worth or income.
  Please hear that. We do not like to hear it; our constituents do not 
like to hear it, but that is where it goes. Regardless of need, three-
quarters. And only $1 out of every $6 serves to lift people above the 
poverty line. That is the way it is. Every one of those figures are 
completely attributed, completely correct and from several sources: 
CBO, OMB, BEA, NTUF. There it is. I almost hate to bring out a chart 
like that, to be called mean-spirited, ugly, and all the rest. But 
somebody ought to do this now and then.

  And then there are some programs that preferentially serve the poor. 
For example, food stamps, Medicaid. No one is questioning the need for 
those, but others like Social Security and Medicare deliver larger 
benefits to those who are well off. These two tendencies virtually--
really, actually--cancel out each other to the point where households 
earning over $100,000 in income receive just as much entitlement 
assistance as do households that bring in less than $10,000 per year.
  Look at this. Federal benefit dollars are just as likely to go to the 
affluent as to the needy. Here is the column, a total of $5,560 for 
that family, $5,600 here, and this is for household income over 
$100,000. And only a little bit of it means tested down here with 
welfare and food stamps.
  There it is. It is absolutely absurd that we have to listen to the 
assertion that we are taking care of the poor. We are not taking care 
of the poor. We are taking care of a lot of people that are very well 
off.
  The common denominator of our Federal entitlement system is therefore 
that it is not a system that transfers benefits from the well off to 
the needy. It is, rather, a system that now transfers from the young to 
the elderly, regardless of need, and that is absurd.
  There is another interesting statistic; that if we do not start doing 
something about it, in the year 2010, 60 percent of the domestic budget 
of the United States will be going to people over 60, and the young 
people will simply be ignored, apparently, at least if we allow the 
greed level to continue as it does with certain senior citizens groups. 
And, of course, it is entirely appropriate for society to set resources 
aside to take care of Americans in their years of retirement.
  At 95 my father died. He probably put $10,000 in Social Security. But 
when you live to be 95, in a gracious way he wanted that money to go to 
the Little League and he gave it to other groups or to his 
grandchildren. I said, ``Well, Pop, maybe you should let the Government 
give it to the Little League.'' And he said, ``Mind your own business 
son.'' A wonderful man, a wonderful father and a magnificent human. But 
that was his. He said, ``I want to give it. I put into it from the 
beginning.''
  What I tell others who say that: ``Well, remember what you put in 
from the beginning then because if you were in Social Security from the 
beginning, you put in $30 a year for the first 13 years, and then you 
really got struck with a hammer blow. You put in $174 by 1960. Ladies 
and gentlemen, you toadied up 174 bucks a year in 1960, and then you 
got nailed $300 a year, $500 a year, $800 a year, $1,200 a year, $1,500 
a year, and blood pouring out of your eyes finally $2,000 a year. Now 
it is up to about $3,300 a year, and guess what? People are paying more 
in Social Security now than they pay in income tax, and they are 
getting very tired of it.
  Then the people that come to the town meetings are getting $500 to 
$700 a month out of a system where the most they ever paid in was 
$3,000 a year, and that is in this year. Now, let us all step up and 
put your foot on the bar rail and try to withdraw ourselves from the 
elixir they present to us all.
  Here we are now where we say we want to take care of Americans in 
retirement, and yet they are the better off in society now, the 
seniors.
  It is equally appropriate to set aside, in my mind, ``something'' on 
behalf of our children and our grandchildren. And yet we give, and 
please get these figures, 11 times more to the elderly than we give to 
our children.
  There are the figures. Benefits for the elderly, 65 and over, have 
shot through the roof. Since 1965, the benefit increase for those over 
65, $9,632; for those under 18, the benefit increase is $655. No 
society can exist when you ignore your young.
  We have all been through this. My good pal Danny Rostenkowski several 
years ago found some deceptively frail people pouncing all over his car 
saying that they were not going to let him do catastrophic health care, 
by George, which would cost them $884 a year. And guess what? If we had 
done the catastrophic health care bill, which I did not vote to repeal, 
we would not be in the mess we are with regard to health care. Because 
if we had done catastrophic health care, 60 percent of the people who 
are covered, the elderly, would have paid no supplemental premium 
beyond 7 bucks a month, and then the wealthiest of all of them, the 5 
percent at the top, the people that we all heard from--that was when 
the mailman from Sun City had a hernia hauling the mail in here as to 
what was happening to these people--those people would have had to pay 
$884 a year more, and they brought it down. They destroyed it. And 
thanks to this, we are now largely enraveled in a health care problem. 
If we had done the catastrophic health care in a sensible way, and it 
was. And oh, boy, what benefits it had. I did not hear many seniors 
remembering what we had in it: 365 days of unlimited hospital care, 
hospice care for a terminal illness, no copayments for hospital care, 
not over 600 bucks a year for your pharmaceuticals--unbelievable--for 7 
bucks a month except for the fat cats at the top who would have had to 
put up $884 a year. And they crushed it, and now we are going to spend 
billions of their money--billions of their money--to correct what they 
could have fixed or allowed us to fix a few years ago.
  Well, another recurring fiction, if I may share it with you, is that 
beneficiaries of these entitlement programs are ``only getting back 
what they paid in.'' I have touched on that. And there we see another 
chart. That argument that they are only getting back what they paid in 
is certifiable, unmitigated hogwash. They know and we know about the 
Social Security and Medicare contributions collected in this country 
over the years. They were inadequate to keep the system from going 
virtually belly up approximately a decade ago, and people like Senator 
Pat Moynihan and people of good will in both parties finally got 
together and reconstructed what was headed for disaster, leaving, of 
course, a group called ``notch babies,'' which we have all heard from.
  Notch babies are people who received more than they ever should have 
received under any scenario known to man or woman, and yet they come to 
the town meetings. They do not come to mine anymore, which is very 
good, actually. I said I would put a notch in one of them one day 
myself.
  Now, these are the people who put in the least, the least, and got 
out the most. In fact, the replacement rate on Social Security for the 
average recipient is about 41 or 43 percent, and a lot more of the 
percentage of it goes to the wage earner, the ditch digger. He or she 
gets more than the affluent. And so that is what we did, but the notch 
baby was receiving up to 55 percent and it was headed for 100 percent 
of what they had put in, and thanks to the blue ribbon commission on 
Social Security, we corrected it. And they still come to the town 
meetings, and they have received more than any other people who put in 
that amount, without question. And then a year later there is a 
difference in benefits received by those folks, and now they ``want 
their money.'' It would only take something between $200 billion and 
$400 billion over 10 years to give them what they want. And I am not 
about to vote for that.
  Finally, I think that issue has died down around here. Nobody has the 
gumption to step up and really say that these people are aggrieved, 
when they have received far above the typical replacement rate for 
Social Security.
  I just wanted to show you that. The payback on Social Security and 
Medicare far exceeds what they have paid in plus interest. They always 
say, ``If I had had that money, plus interest, and put it in an 
investment, I would not be here. I want it out and I want it 
separate.'' I respectfully say that is not so.
  See here lifetime benefits, for a worker with a nonworking spouse, 
$308,000. For new retirees, the benefit payback can be almost four 
times the tax paid. Lifetime benefits for a single worker, $184,000. 
Medicare, part B, is paid 25 percent by the beneficiary and 75 percent 
by ``Joe Six-Pack.'' Wait until we try to correct that. The mail room 
will break down. I have been through this one.
  You tell me why somebody should be paying $41.10 a month, which is 25 
percent of the part B premiums, while the general taxpayers are paying 
75 percent regardless of their net worth or their income? You think we 
will correct that in the health care debate? The mail room will break 
down.
  Those are some things that I want to share. I think it is very 
important. I think the American people are smarter than their elected 
politicians. That is the way it has always been.
  You have to admire people like Senator Sasser, Senator Domenici, 
former Senator Lawton Chiles, people who have worked on this through 
the years. They deserve awards because they try to tell us these 
things, and they do. We will not do anything, but one thing will 
happen. The staff will bring to us the mail for that week and say,``Oh, 
God. Don't touch that; 5,000 cards from outraged senior citizens.'' And 
they are highly organized. I can tell you that. I think they are 
feeling guilty, at least if they have children and grandchildren, 
because right now we have a situation where three people are paying 
into the Social Security System and one taking out.
  When I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, there were 16 
loyal workers contributing to Social Security and one taking out. Today 
there are 3.2, and in 30 years there will be two people paying in and 
one taking out. Can you imagine the generational struggle that will 
take place in this country when two fine working people are putting in 
$12,500 each so some guy can get $25,000 out, regardless of his net 
worth or his income?
  And pay close attention to a little item in this budget this year, in 
the words of Leon Panetta, who is gutsy beyond belief. It is in there. 
It says that unless we do something, all generations born from this day 
forward will be paying 82 percent of their wages to sustain these 
systems in the United States: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--82 
percent. That is where we are.
  These benefits are so out of control that there are some projections 
which indicate, as I say, that they could by themselves create payroll 
taxes above 50 percent by the year 2040. Well, I do not claim that will 
happen. The latter is a ``worse-case'' scenario.
  Social Security is not rising nearly as quickly as is Medicare. But 
it is clear that the more pessimistic projection is nothing short of 
disastrous for our country. Yet the most optimistic projections are 
that come the year 2040, as I say, there will be only two workers 
putting anything in. They will be required to fund more than $17 
trillion in outlays in Medicare, Social Security, Federal pensions, and 
interest payments promised to just those future beneficiaries who are 
already alive.
  So then let me conclude, because the managers want to get on with 
their work. I will obviously have to go back and begin answering the 
phone, which will be ringing off the hook far into the night.
  The ``aging of America'' means that a growing number of Social 
Security and Medicare recipients must be supported by worker paychecks, 
two workers to put in the bucks and one to take them out, regardless of 
their net worth or their income. And unless the current policy is 
reformed, it could cost future workers a huge chunk of their payroll in 
taxes. There it is. And there is no question about where that goes, in 
any scenario.
  Finally, today's adults are promised $14 trillion more in benefits 
than they will ever earn through payroll ``contributions.'' In 1991, 
unfunded benefit liabilities amounted to $14 trillion in this system. 
So there you are, America.
  That is an expectation that can only be met by means of a colossal 
and economically ruinous injustice against future generations. That is 
the figure in the President's budget. If that was President Bush or 
President Reagan, they would have had a fainting spell around the city.
  It comes from a gutsy guy named Leon Panetta, who stuck it in there 
because he and his able Deputy Alice Rivlin know what is happening in 
America. That is what is happening in America.
  So I am sure the AARP will gear up, and we will hear from all of 
them. It will be a riotous time when we deal with these really gut-hard 
issues, and we have to do it.
  There are only two options for changing this outlook. One is to shift 
some of that tax burden from future generations onto current ones. That 
is the policy that was pursued by this President and this Congress last 
August. We passed a massive tax increase, one which the administration 
claims cut that ``future tax rate'' from 93 percent to 82 percent, by 
asking today's generations to pay $250 billion more in taxes.
  But we cannot get very far with that choice. ``Shifting'' some of 
tomorrow's tax burden onto today's generations may make things more 
fair but it does not change the fundamental problem. The essence of 
that problem is that we are promising levels of benefits that require 
exorbitant, confiscatory tax rates--whether collected today or 
tomorrow.
  This brings me to describe what I am offering today. This is an 
amendment that would slow the rate of growth in a number of mandatory 
spending categories. I want to stress that point--my amendment would 
slow growth rates, not make ``cuts,'' in entitlement programs.
  Last September, the bipartisan Concord Coalition--a group headed up 
by our great friends and former Senators Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman 
to dramatize the perils of our Federal deficit--unveiled a program to 
balance the budget by the end of the decade.
  The essential point that comes through loud and clear in reviewing 
their program is that we cannot balance the budget without effecting 
changes in the mandatory entitlement system. If we cannot balance the 
budget, we cannot make any progress in reducing the total debt that we 
are leaving to future generations. You can't get there by cuts in 
foreign aid, in defense, or even solely through appropriations cuts at 
all. You have to ``go where the money is.''
  But even that is not the real point. We ought not to ``go after'' 
entitlement spending simply because it is the largest and fastest 
rising part of the Federal budget. We ought to review our entitlement 
system because it so little resembles what an ``entitlement system'' 
ought to be.
  It is my view--and, I believe, the view of many Senators--that the 
entitlement system should represent a ``safety net'' for those 
Americans who, whether from poverty, illness, or age, are unable to 
fully provide for themselves. It is not intended to be a system of 
dependency for those Americans who do not need it. It is not intended 
to provide incentives for healthy, fully productive Americans to spend 
one-third of their lives in retirement, at the taxpayer's expense.
  Because of this we ought, for a number of reasons, to take a close 
look at proposals that seek to slow the flow of dollars from working 
Americans to entitlement beneficiaries who are better off than those 
who are supporting them. There is no reason for Federal spending to 
soar so that we can maintain a flow of benefits ``upstream.''
  The Concord Coalition unveiled a proposal to ``means-test'' 
entitlement benefits for those households who already have annual 
incomes above $40,000 per year. This was a critical component of what 
the Concord Coalition concluded was necessary to balance the budget. I 
am going to call it ``affluence testing''--sounds better.
  I am not out here to seek to implement the Concord Coalition's 
proposal. Let me make that clear from the beginning. In the first 
place, there are valid, legitimate questions to be asked about the 
efficacy of such an ``affluence-test.'' One of them is whether or not 
income is even an accurate measurement of the wealth of elderly 
beneficiaries. Perhaps total assets held, or accumulated wealth, is a 
better definition of ``means'' for the purposes of determining what 
kind of affluence benefits these households should receive. And 
further, there are enforcement questions; it is not at all clear 
whether seeking to withhold benefits as a function of income is an 
enforceable proposition, or whether it invites evasion and abuse of a 
type that we have seen with Medicaid and other ``need-based'' programs. 
It could well be that ``means-testing'' is best enforced through the 
Tax Code, or by some other means different from that suggested by the 
Concord Coalition.

  These are the types of issues that I will be studying as a member of 
the President's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform. My 
discussion of this amendment is not intented to preempt those findings 
in any way.
  The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has ``scored'' the effects over 
5 years, of implementing the Concord Coalition's proposal immediately. 
Instead, my amendment would cut spending growth by an amount equal to 
the savings that would be achieved if we were to slowly phase in the 
Concord Coalition's program--20 percent each year, for 5 years, until 
finally reaching full implementation in 1999.
  There are other points that I would like to make in discussing my 
amendment.
  The first is that an amendment to the budget resolution does not 
implement a policy. That is left to the appropriate committees. What it 
does do is to set revenue and spending targets for Congress to meet.
  Thus, my amendment does not introduce ``means-testing'' or any other 
policy change. Let no one come forth to the field of combat and say 
that we are voting on ``means-testing'' entitlement benefits. That is 
not done in a budget resolution. My amendment leaves the door open to 
achieving savings by any means that the appropriate committees choose.
  I have discussed the Concord Coalition's ``means-testing'' proposal 
because I do not believe that such an amendment should be offered as a 
vague ``cap'' or ``black box,'' with no honesty about the difficult 
choices that are necessary to adhere to such spending restrictions. It 
is my aim for the Senate to confront the types of policy changes that 
will be necessary if we are to get mandatory spending under control.
  Sooner or later, this body will have to do that--I can assure my 
colleagues that the longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
  The second point I seek to make is that I am not talking about making 
any ``cuts.'' I know that I will hear a chorus of howls and shrieks 
from certain interest groups, alleging that such an amendment would 
``cut'' Medicare or Social Security.
  In fact, that is one reason why I have phased in the Concord 
Coalition savings over 5 years--to ensure that we do not have a ``cut'' 
in current dollars from 1 year to the next.
  An amendment to the budget resolution makes for confusing reading, so 
let me describe my amendment to my fellow Senators.
  My amendment would make changes in projected Medicaid spending. I 
will be curious as to whether the changes I suggest can be defined as 
``a cut.'' Here are the outlays that will result in the Medicaid 
portion of the budget if my amendment is adopted; $122.5 billion in 
1995, $135.3 billion in 1996, $149.2 billion in 1997, $164.4 billion in 
1998, and $181.2 billion in 1999. If there are any ``cuts'' in there, I 
am quite lost and befuddled. There is not an annual change in that 
series that is less than a 10 percent increase. Those are increases in 
real dollars, in current dollars, relative to GNP--pick your measure. 
These remain increases in every sense of the word.
  I know, however, that people will call this type of change a ``cut.'' 
But let me read from page 75 of the budget resolution--the very 
document that we are deliberating today. ``The baseline concept has 
been misused to portray policies that would simply slow down the 
increase in spending as spending reductions.'' That is so very true. 
And yet I fully expect that my amendment would be opposed on the basis 
of the ``cuts'' it would require.

  Let me now discuss Medicare. What would my amendment do to Medicare? 
We would have outlays of $159.9 billion in 1995, $174.5 billion in 
1996, $189.9 billion in 1997, $205.4 billion in 1998, and $225.1 
billion in 1999. Again, my amendment would effect increases of at least 
8 percent every year. Those are increases in real dollars, in current 
dollars, or however you want to measure.
  And now, the big one: Social Security. My amendment would provide for 
a growth in Social Security--from $286.3 billion in 1995 to $310.5 
billion in 1999. I know how people are going to respond to that one. 
Although most Americans would consider that an increase, people will 
point out that this growth will be less than inflation, meaning that, 
if we did not effect some kind of ``means-testing,'' then ``COLA's,'' 
at least, would be in jeopardy.
  I expect to hear some savage criticisms of my amendment on that basis 
alone. But I would say to my colleagues: These difficult choices, 
between means-testing, COLA eliminations, and retirement age increases, 
are not created by Al Simpson.
  These are choices imposed on this Congress by the inexorable progress 
of budgetary events currently beyond our control. I am not the author 
of this predicament; nor does my amendment create it. This predicament 
exists in any event, and it will impose itself on this and all future 
Congresses.
  Let me reiterate my principal points for those who may have missed 
them. First, my amendment would reduce projected spending baselines by 
an amount equal to what you would get if you phased in the Concord 
Coalition's ``means-testing'' proposal over 5 years. Second, my 
amendment does not dictate that we achieve the savings in that way. All 
options are still open to this Senate. Third, my amendment does not 
require Congress to ``cut'' any of these programs. It would require us 
to develop a means to slow only a little bit of the projected rate of 
increase in these programs.
  It is my hope that this amendment will force the Senate to confront 
just a small fraction of the types of measures which will be necessary 
to get our fiscal house in order. My amendment does not come close to 
balancing the budget over 5 years. We have to go far, far beyond this 
if we are to get to that point. But if we are talking about getting 
Government spending under control, this is the sort of thing we will 
have to do.
  It is the sort of thing that we must do--but I know quite well that 
we will not do it today. I have been around this Chamber long enough to 
be able to count votes pretty well and there aren't enough enthusiasts 
in this body who are willing to cast votes in favor of this amendment.
  I will withdraw the amendment, for it would garner at least 10 votes. 
Because of the clogging that would take place in the elevator area 
during the rollcall on that one, we would not be able to get to work 
for 2 days. They would be camped out in the streets saying, ``Don't cut 
any of this or that or we will all die. Everybody will be broke. We 
will be destroyed.'' And remember the greatest, the most egregious one 
of all. That is when they say, ``you are cutting Medicare and 
Medicaid.'' Do not buy it, America. Wake up and smell the coffee, for 
God's sakes, because Medicaid is going up 29 percent. And we are saying 
let us let it go up only 10 percent, and that is called a ``cut'' by 
these groups. Medicare is going up 13 percent, and they say, ``Oh, you 
let it go up only 8 percent. That is a cut.'' It is not a cut. It is an 
8-percent increase.
  So wake up and have one on me. If you do we will do the treats out in 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator has the right 
to withdraw the amendment. The Senator asked to do that.
  The amendment (No. 1573) was withdrawn.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1574

       (Purpose: To reduce the deficit, reduce the tax burden on 
     children, and promote the private pursuit of happiness)

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1574.

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $10,380,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $26,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $27,600,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $30,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $32,300,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $10,380,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $20,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $27,600,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $30,000,000,000.
       On page 3, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $32,300,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $10,380,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $26,000,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $27,600,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $30,000,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $32,300,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $10,380,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $26,000,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $27,600,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 18 by 
     $30,000,000,000.
       On page 4, decrease the amount on line 19 by 
     $32,300,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $34,437,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $41,896,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $46,641,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 4 by 
     $40,493,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $45,034,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $34,437,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $41,896,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $46,641,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $40,493,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $45,034,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $10,584,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $29,223,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $35,986,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $41,131,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $40,215,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $10,584,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $29,223,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $35,986,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $41,131,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $40,215,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 17 by $204,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 18 by 
     $3,223,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 19 by 
     $8,386,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 20 by 
     $11,131,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $7,915,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 1 by $204,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 2 by $3,223,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 3 by $8,386,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 4 by 
     $11,131,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 5 by $7,915,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 8 by $204,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 9 by $3,427,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $11,813,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $22,944,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $30,859,000,000.
       On page 8, decrease the amount on line 7 by $204,000,000.
       On page 8, decrease the amount on line 8 by $3,223,000,000.
       On page 8, decrease the amount on line 9 by $8,386,000,000.
       On page 8, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $11,131,000,000.
       On page 8, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $7,915,000,000.
       On page 10, decrease the amount on line 3 by $100,000,000.
       On page 11, increase the amount on line 6 by $100,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $4,000,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $1,300,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $3,900,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $2,500,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $4,100,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $3,200,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $4,000,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $4,000,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $3,800,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $3,900,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 7 by $400,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 8 by $200,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 14 by $500,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 15 by $400,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 21 by $600,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 22 by $500,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 3 by $700,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 4 by $600,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 10 by $800,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 11 by $800,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 18 by $900,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 19 by $300,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 3 by $900,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $1,400,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $1,300,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 18 by 
     $1,800,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 19 by 
     $1,800,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $2,300,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $2,200,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $4,300,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 12 by $900,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 18 by 
     $4,500,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 19 by 
     $2,100,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $4,300,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $3,200,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $4,700,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $4,000,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $4,900,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $4,500,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 22 by $500,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 23 by $300,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 5 by $500,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 6 by $600,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 13 by $600,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 14 by $700,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 22 by $600,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 5 by $900,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 6 by $800,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $1,700,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $2,600,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $2,200,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $3,100,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $2,800,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $4,200,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $3,900,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $2,200,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $1,700,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $8,300,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $5,400,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $7,500,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $6,600,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $7,600,000,000.
       On page 21, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $7,500,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $6,800,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $7,900,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $9,000,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $8,400,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $4,800,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 24 by $300,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $4,400,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $3,000,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 15 by 
     $4,300,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $3,400,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $4,700,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $3,900,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $4,100,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $4,100,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $6,900,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 18 by 
     $2,200,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $8,500,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $6,500,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $9,900,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $8,900,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $11,000,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $10,400,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $12,100,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $11,500,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $1,200,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 9 by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $1,900,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $1,600,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $2,700,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $2,500,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 5 by 
     $2,900,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $2,900,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 12 by 
     $3,700,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $3,400,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 20 by $100,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 21 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 2 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 3 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 9 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 10 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 16 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 17 by $100,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 23 by $200,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 24 by $200,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 20 by 
     $7,200,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 21 by $800,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $9,600,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $1,300,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $11,300,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $3,000,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $7,100,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $7,800,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $17,200,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $6,500,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 17 by $700,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 18 by $300,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $1,200,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $1,600,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $1,900,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $1,800,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $2,000,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $1,900,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $1,700,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $1,400,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 8 by $337,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 9 by $584,000,000.
       On page 35, decrease the amount on line 15 by $204,000,000.
       On page 35, increase the amount on line 16 by $669,000,000.
       On page 35, increase the amount on line 22 by $721,000,000.
       On page 35, increase the amount on line 23 by 
     $1,476,000,000.
       On page 36, increase the amount on line 5 by 
     $2,172,000,000.
       On page 36, increase the amount on line 6 by 
     $2,534,000,000.
       On page 36, increase the amount on line 12 by 
     $3,273,000,000.
       On page 36, increase the amount on line 13 by 
     $4,092,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 20 by $800,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 21 by $100,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 2 by $600,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $1,700,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $1,800,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $1,500,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $2,300,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 23 by 
     $2,500,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $3,400,000,000.
       On page 38, decrease the amount on line 13 by $92,000,000.
       On page 38, decrease the amount on line 14 by $92,000,000.
       On page 38, decrease the amount on line 20 by $462,000,000.
       On page 38, decrease the amount on line 21 by $462,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 2 by $965,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 3 by $965,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $1,107,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $1,107,000,000.
       On page 39, decrease the amount on line 25 by $92,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 1 by $92,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 7 by $462,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 8 by $462,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 13 by $965,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 14 by $965,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $1,107,000,000.
       On page 40, decrease the amount on line 22 by 
     $1,107,000,000.
       On page 41, decrease the amount on line 4 by $92,000,000.
       On page 41, decrease the amount on line 5 by $462,000,000.
       On page 41, decrease the amount on line 6 by $965,000,000.
       On page 41, decrease the amount on line 7 by 
     $1,107,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 11 by 
     $7,800,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 12 by 
     $3,800,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 18 by 
     $4,900,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 19 by $800,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 25 by 
     $5,600,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 1 by 
     $3,100,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 7 by 
     $8,700,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 8 by 
     $8,300,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 14 by 
     $20,100,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 15 by 
     $11,800,000,000.
       On page 70, increase the amount on line 21 by 
     $41,896,000,000.
       On page 70, increase the amount on line 22 by 
     $29,223,000,000.
       On page 70, increase the amount on line 24 by 
     $46,641,000,000.
       On page 70, increase the amount on line 25 by 
     $35,986,000,000.
       On page 71, increase the amount on line 7 by 
     $40,493,000,000.
       On page 71, increase the amount on line 3 by 
     $41,131,000,000.

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I have sent to the desk what some will 
view as a radical amendment. We have voted on several amendments today. 
We voted on several yesterday. Most of those amendments made only 
marginal changes: Take a little money from here; put a little money 
there; sustain a marginal cut here in discretionary spending versus a 
marginal cut there in entitlement spending.
  The amendment that I am sending to the desk represents a dramatic 
departure from budgeting as we have practiced it since 1982.
  To save everybody's time, let me describe the amendment in a little 
bit of detail. Then let me talk about the issue in terms of what it is 
really about. And I will try to do all of that in such a way as to 
deviate from my background as a school teacher and get my presentation 
finished by the time that we start voting on amendments at 3 o'clock.
  My amendment makes two kinds of cuts. First of all, it accepts every 
cut in the Clinton budget, but accepts none of the add-ons. But, in 
addition, it fully funds the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's office, justice 
assistance, DEA, INS, U.S. Marshals, and organized crime drug task 
forces.
  In other words, it takes every cut in the Clinton budget except, 
unlike the Clinton budget, it fully funds our law enforcement effort. 
It takes none of the President's add-ons. In the process, it saves $72 
billion over a 5-year period.
  Second, once you have made those cuts it freezes for 5 years the 
authority to spend or what we call budget authority which is just the 
right to spend money, and that saves $85 billion.
  Then it does two things with the money. First, it applies some of it 
to deficit reduction. Taken with the Grassley-Exon amendment that was 
adopted in committee, it reduces the deficit by $57 billion as compared 
to the original budget.
  Then, second, it takes the remaining $126 billion and it uses that to 
fund a doubling of the child exemption, the deduction that people get 
on their income taxes, and will allow them to keep more of their money 
to raise, to feed, to clothe, to educate, to house their children. That 
current dependent deduction is $2,350, which is about a third the 
level, in real dollars after inflation, that existed in 1950.
  It raises that dependent exemption, so that families can keep more of 
what they earn, from $2,350 to $4,700.
  So what the amendment before us does is, it takes all the President's 
savings, and it fully funds law enforcement; it freezes discretionary 
spending for 5 years; then it dramatically reduces the deficit, and it 
doubles the dependent exemption for every working family in America.
  This dependent exemption will mean that American families with 
children will get to keep more of their own money, and they will get to 
spend it. I am sure someone will say, well, there probably is a rich 
person in America somewhere with a child, and since you have at least 
one rich person that might benefit, then we do not want to give this to 
anybody. I remind my colleagues, that, as we are all aware, 90 percent 
of the savings of doubling the dependent exemption for children would 
go to families making less than $75,000 a year. Under existing law, in 
fact, the ability to use deductions starts phasing out at $122,500.
  What is the purpose of this amendment? Well, the purpose of this 
amendment is to control Government spending and to give money back to 
working families that they earned in the first place, and to let them 
spend the money themselves.
  I know some of my colleagues want to say that by freezing spending, 
you are going to produce a situation where less money is being spent on 
housing; less money is being spent on nutrition; less money is being 
spent on education. But I respond by saying that is not true.
  It is true that less money will be spent by Government on these 
things, but what my amendment does, which some in this body will call 
radical, is it lets families spend their own money on these things. It 
takes the view that we know Government, and we know how it works, and 
we know how it does not work, and we know American families, and we 
know the difference. By doubling the personal exemption for children, 
what we are going to do is not cut spending on housing, nutrition, or 
education, we are simply going to have different people spending the 
money.
  The existing budget offered and supported by Democratic colleagues 
says: Let Government spend the money.
  My amendment says: Let the families spend the money.
  I know Government, I know the family, and I know the difference. I 
believe that by letting families keep more of what they earn to invest 
in housing, feeding, and educating their own children, they will do a 
better job, and that American children will be better housed, better 
fed, better educated, and our society will be richer, freer, and 
happier.
  What am I trying to respond to here, Madam President? Well, let me 
try to summarize it as follows: In the last 2 months, we have had three 
or four different polls that have shown something I think is pretty 
startling about our country.
  In the last 2 or 3 months, we have had three different pollsters find 
that when you ask Americans, ``Do you believe you are better off than 
your parents were?'' by a slight majority, people say, ``No.''
  Then when they ask people, ``Do you feel your children are going to 
do better than you have done?'' by almost a 2-to-1 margin, today, in 
1994, Americans say, ``No.''
  What we are seeing, Madam President, is an assault on the American 
dream. Like many Members of this body, I grew up in a family where 
neither of my parents graduated from high school; yet, my mother never 
had any doubt in the world that I was going to graduate from college. I 
fought it, resisted it, and they kept trying to vaccinate me with 
learning. I failed the third, seventh, and ninth grades, but my mother 
prodded me every step of the way through college and through a Ph.D. in 
economics. In the world I grew up in, in the 1950's and 1960's, 
mothers' dreams did not die easily in America. The real tragedy of the 
1990's is that all over our country, mothers' dreams today are dying. I 
believe that something needs to be done about it.
  Why is it that Americans are so worried about the future? Why is it 
that by almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe that their children 
are not going to do better than they are doing? What has happened to 
this pillar of American society called the ``American dream''?
  Well, I think there are a lot of reasons that the dream is fading. 
Part of it is the ineffectiveness of Government services in education 
and in law enforcement. Part of it is the explosion of Government 
bureaucracy, where small business people feel that Government exists to 
put them out of business. And whether Government is out to do it, or 
whether it is just happening, people see it happening every day, and 
they do not believe their children will have the same opportunity to 
start out with a dream of owning their own business and making it 
prosper and grow.
  The part of the American dream that is fading that I am trying to 
deal with here has to do with the family. In 1950, the average American 
family making the median income with two children sent $1 out of every 
$50 it earned to Washington, DC. Let me repeat that statistic: In 1950, 
the average American family with two children that made the median 
income sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to Washington, which meant 
that $49 out of every $50 it kept and either spent at the State level 
in taxes or, more importantly, the vast majority of that money retained 
by the average working family in 1950 was invested in its future and in 
the future of its children.
  Today, the average American family sends $1 out of every $4 it earns 
to Washington, DC. When you take State and local taxes, which have 
exploded since the 1950's, what you are finding is that the average 
working family is giving more and more and more of its money to 
Government, and it is getting to keep less and less. In fact, new 
statistics indicate that in a two-wage-earner family, the second wage 
earner is sending to the Government, as compared to the situation that 
existed in 1950, two-thirds of his or her income. If you have a couple, 
where both the husband and wife work, as compared to 1950, the second 
wage earner is sending two-thirds of the income to Washington, DC, to 
fund more Government, instead of investing it in their family and their 
future.
  What I have proposed to do, Madam President, is to reverse that, to 
take the President's cuts, to freeze discretionary spending, to take 
part of that money and apply it to deficit reduction but to give the 
rest of the money back to working families by doubling the dependent 
child exemption so that families can invest their money in their 
future, so that families can make decisions about their expenditures on 
housing, education, and nutrition.

  I believe that this is the kind of change in public policy we need.
  I think that it is very dangerous in America when, by a margin of 
more than 2 to 1, parents believe that their children are not likely to 
do better than they have done. That is a fundamental assault on the 
American dream and on American society.
  I submit, Madam President, that one of the reasons that is so is that 
in the last 40 years we have seen an explosion in Government. Whereas, 
the average family with children was then sending $1 of every $50 to 
Washington, today it is sending $1 out of every $4. I am trying to 
reverse that.
  This does not raise the child-dependent exemption to the level that 
existed in 1950, but it takes us in that direction. It is an important 
first step. I hope my colleagues will adopt it.
  I know that some are going to get up and say the way we are doing 
budgets now, since the 1990 budget summit agreement is if, you want to 
let people keep more money you have to cut it out of certain kinds of 
expenditures. Madam President, we are capable of changing that law 
right here on the floor of the Senate. We are capable of waiving that 
requirement.
  Some are going to say that is the way we did it. The point is the way 
we are doing it is not working. I want to make a dramatic change. That 
is what this amendment is about. It is about privatizing worker income. 
It is about letting families invest in their future.
  I see I have several colleagues here and I would like, Madam 
President, to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Indiana 
[Mr. Coats].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  I remind Senators that at 3 o'clock, according to the previous order, 
there will be several back-to-back votes.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I may not use all the 5 minutes I have.
  Madam President, when you look at the Tax Code, its seems that 
everyone gets a special tax break. But no one deserves or needs it more 
than the most special, special interest of all--the family.
  Earlier today, the Senate rejected a budget alternative that would 
have provided much-needed tax relief to hard-working middle class 
families in the form of a $500 family tax credit.
  The Gramm-Coats amendment offers another chance for Senators to allow 
families to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars.


                        WHAT OUR AMENDMENT DOES

  Our amendment doubles the dependent exemption from the current $2,350 
to $4,500 a year.
  The amendment not only pays for a doubling of the exemption, but it 
also fully funds the Senate crime bill and it reduces the deficit by an 
additional $31 billion.
  The amendment would accept the nondefense discretionary reductions 
proposed in the President's budget, except for cuts proposed for crime-
fighting agencies--FBI, U.S. Attorney's Office, Justice Assistance, 
DEA, INS, U.S. Marshals and organized crime drug enforcement--which 
would be restored.
  In addition, it would freeze budget authority for remaining 
nondefense discretionary spending to achieve a total budget authority 
freeze over 5 years.
  The question our amendment asks is fundamental: Would a family rather 
have more money in their pockets to spend as they choose or would they 
rather have bigger Government in Washington that offers little to the 
average family?


             WHY WE NEED TO PROVIDE TAX RELIEF TO FAMILIES

  Why is this measure needed? It's needed because over the last several 
decades, tax burdens have been radically redistributed--not from poor 
to rich or rich to poor, but directly on families with children.
  Single people and married couples with no children face just about 
the same tax rates as they did in 1960. But for a couple with two 
children, average taxes have risen about 43 percent. A family with four 
children has found their tax bill more than tripled.
  The reason is simple. The personal exemption--the way the Tax Code 
adjusts for family size--has been eroded by inflation and neglect.
  Congress has allowed the exemption that once protected families with 
children to fall in six decades to less than a third of its original 
value.
  The bipartisan National Commission on America's Urban Families 
accurately stated the problem in its January 1993 report entitled 
``Families First'':

       As the dependent exemption has shrunk as a percentage of 
     income, families with children have incurred much larger tax 
     increases than other groups of Americans. . . . The 
     previously favorable Federal Tax Code treatment of families 
     with children has steadily deteriorated in recent decades.

  The Progressive Policy Institute, in its 1990 manifesto: ``Putting 
Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990's,'' points 
out:

       In 1948, there was a pro-family Government policy based on 
     a simple notion: The Government should not tax away that 
     portion of a family's income that is needed to raise 
     children. . . . The 1948 personal exemption was $600 and 
     median family income was $3187. This meant that a family of 
     four at median income paid a minuscule 0.3 percent of their 
     income in Federal income taxes.

  Today, that family shells out one-quarter of its income to Uncle Sam. 
If you add in State and local taxes, the tax burden on that family 
grows to more than 38 percent of its income.
  According to the Urban Institute, if the value of the personal 
exemption for taxpayers with children had been adjusted for inflation 
and real growth in income since 1948, it would have been $8,652 in 
1993. Today, it stands at $2,350.


                    children are expensive to raise

  For many families, this tax burden is a source of economic distress. 
Children are more, not less, expensive to raise.
  According to Family Economics Review, it currently costs between 
$4,000 and $5,000 per year, per child, depending on the age of each 
child.
  Anybody who has ever bought a pair of Air Jordans at $125 a pair for 
their teenager knows how expensive it is to raise kids. That is a 
pricetag of about $80,000 by the time each child reaches 18--before 
that child even leaves for college.
  An increase in the personal exemption will help restore the 
protection families once enjoyed in the Tax Code.
  By putting money directly back into the hands of the American family 
as the Gramm-Coats amendment would do, we can provide them the power to 
make their own choices without Government interference. We can provide 
parents with the ability to better care for themselves and their 
children.


                the time has come for family tax relief

  Contrary to what some may believe, American families do not view 
their earnings as a source of tax revenue, but as the just reward of 
their own work.
  Ronald Reagan once commented, ``For too long, Government has stood in 
the way of people taking home more of what they earn, no matter how 
hard they try. It is economics without a soul.''
  As a candidate, President Clinton echoed a similar thought in 
advocating family tax relief: ``We need to stop taxing away the money 
parents need to raise a family, and restore the value of the children's 
tax exemption.''--From ``A Plan for America's Future.''
  Families should clearly be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned 
tax dollars.
  It is a matter of simple equity for millions of American families 
that have been ordered by the Government to give until it hurts and 
then give some more. A vote for the Gramm-Coats amendment is a vote to 
restore equity to the Tax Code.
  I am pleased to join my colleague, the Senator from Texas, in 
offering this amendment. It is an issue that I have been working on, 
and a number of us have been working on, for a long, long time. That is 
to bring equity to working families who are trying to raise children 
and meet the expenses of doing so.
  This battle began way back in the early eighties as we began to talk 
about how we could restore equity to families who had been shortchanged 
under changes in the Tax Code that had been in place since 1948 when 
the Congress first implemented the personal exemption. It has not kept 
pace with inflation; it has not kept pace with the cost of raising 
children and raising a family. We were fortunate enough to finally 
double it in 1986, but we did not begin to restore it to full equity.
  This amendment does not do that either, but it sure takes it a long 
way towards restoration of equity.
  It seems like over the past 20 years virtually every special interest 
group in America has received a special tax break through the Tax Code, 
except for the most special of special interests, and that is the 
American family.
  This particular amendment comes on the heels of a defeat in this body 
of an attempt just yesterday to propose an alternative which would have 
provided a $500 tax credit for every child in America. I regret that 
that alternative was defeated. This is a second attempt to restore 
equity to the American family.
  I commend Senator Gramm for his efforts in this regard, and I am 
pleased to work with him and join him in doing so.
  What is important here is that this amendment is paid for. It is paid 
for with real dollars, which offset the loss of revenue which would 
ordinarily come to the Treasury if this exemption were not increased. 
It is paid for in a way that helps fund the crime bill, which is 
important to Americans. That reduces the deficit, which is important to 
Americans and American families, and pays for the personal exemption.
  It addresses the question that was raised yesterday as a special tax 
break going to the rich, because under current law this exemption will 
be phased out the higher your income level. It is not discriminatory 
toward the poor because their opportunities under the earned income tax 
credit and, depending on what their income level is, the combination of 
EITC and the personal exemption will provide them relief.
  What it goes to is at the heart of the question, and that is how do 
we provide relief for the middle-income family. That is the family that 
has seen an increasing percentage of their income go to fund the 
Government, to fund Government programs.
  That is the entity, and those are the people that Members from both 
sides of the aisle during their campaigns have said we want to help.
  President Clinton in his campaign was explicit in terms of trying to 
reach out and help middle-income families, trying to give them some 
relief, and he is on record as saying that.
  It has not been provided by the administration. It has not been 
provided in the Democrat budget. So this is an opportunity for Members 
to state where they stand in providing real relief for American 
families and particularly middle-income families.
  Contrary to what many believe, American families do not view their 
earnings as a source of tax revenue but as a just reward for their own 
work. President Reagan once commented ``For too long Government has 
stood in the way of people taking home more of what they earn, no 
matter how hard they try. It is economics without a soul.''
  As a candidate, President Clinton echoed a similar thought in 
advocating family tax relief by saying: ``We need to stop taxing away 
the money parents need to raise a family and restore the value of the 
children's tax exemption.
  Families should clearly be allowed to keep more of their hard earned 
tax dollars.
  It is a matter of simple equity for millions of American families 
that have been ordered by the Government to give until it hurts and 
then give some more. A vote for the Gramm-Coats amendment is a vote to 
restore equity to the Tax Code.
  It is fair, it is paid for, and it is time we delivered on our 
promise to bring relief to American families.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. 
the Senate proceed to consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3345, the Federal workforce restructuring bill; that 
there be 10 minutes for debate, equally divided between Senators Glenn 
and Gramm at that time; that at the conclusion or yielding back of 
time, the Senate resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 
63, and vote in accordance with the previous order on or in relation to 
the three amendments that were stacked to begin at 3 p.m.; that upon 
disposition of the Hutchison amendment, the Senate vote to invoke 
cloture on the conference report of H.R. 3345; that if that vote is not 
successful, the Senate then, without any intervening action or debate, 
vote a second time to invoke cloture on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3345, with the mandatory live quorums being waived.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the second and succeeding votes 
in this sequence be 10 minutes in duration; that the second vote would 
be 10 minutes in duration; and that if cloture fails the Senate resume 
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, I arrived from another engagement, as the chairman 
knows.
  Senator Craig has been waiting for a long time to speak 3 or 4 
minutes on the Domenici amendment. How will that work into this? Will 
he be unable to do that?
  Mr. SASSER. I would not think so because we would be moving into this 
at 3 o'clock. If this UC fails, of course we would move into the votes 
previously ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we not give him 2 minutes right now or 5 minutes?
  Mr. CRAIG. Maybe I can do it in 4.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we do it later? Perhaps the Senator could insert 
it right before we vote on my amendment. Perhaps he could have 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SASSER. Before moving on that, we should dispose of this 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request by the Senator from Tennessee?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1567

  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Idaho be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the Domenici amendment 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for this consideration. I know that time has been a struggle 
here the last 24 hours and the accommodation is truly appreciated.
  I stand today in support of the Domenici amendment because clearly 
this Congress and this Senate has to address deficit reduction across 
the Federal budget. I say that because for so long we have relied on 
what we argue is deficit reduction coming primarily out of 
discretionary money while we have allowed entitlements to grow at an 
astronomical rate in a way that clearly has set this budget out of 
control. I do not care whether President Clinton comes to the Hill and 
says, or any Member of this Senate says, that we have a Federal budget 
that is in control. They simply cannot argue that. The facts are not 
there.
  We are dealing with very fragile projections in these kinds of 
issues.
  Let me give you an example of the very type of thing we are talking 
about. CBO has re-estimated the President's budget to show deficits in 
every year higher than OMB has projected.
  Well, over the next 5 years, we have $113 billion more in deficits 
projected out there than we had projected in the President's budget. In 
less than 2 months--January through March --CBO's projections of its 
own baseline deficits already have gone up by $46.8 billion for the 
next 5 years. And yesterday morning, what did we hear? Orders for U.S. 
factory durable goods dropped 2.5 percent in February, a leading 
indicator of the health of the U.S. manufacturing economy. The Federal 
Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve said this week it would 
raise Federal fund rates by a quarter of a percentage point, following 
an identical increase on February 4.
  Why cannot this Congress understand that long-term projections for 
the budget it is dealing with and the deficit it is dealing with can be 
so much gamesmanship?
  I stood on this floor a month ago arguing for a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution and every time, folks in opposition to it 
would come to the floor of the Senate and say, ``Give us your plan. We 
can't balance the budget without a plan.''
  Well, let me tell you what this body is not doing. With all the 
effort here today on this budget resolution, we are not talking of 
balancing the budget. We are not talking of getting anywhere near that.
  But with the Domenici amendment--even with the Grassley amendment, 
although I would disagree more with it because of where it sends the 
money--we are seeing some movement toward reducing deficits.
  Let me give you some interesting figures. This is something that I 
think few of us want to talk about today. This chart I had my staff 
work with me on--and we have consulted CBO on it--shows two alternative 
deficit projections, the yellow line being the projected Clinton 
deficits. I have already told you that even as we were putting this 
chart together, CBO said, ``Whoops, these figures are wrong. They are 
off by maybe $100 billion.''
  In the outyear of 1999, we are looking at a deficit somewhere between 
$200 billion and $300 billion under the President's budget and at 
today's interest rates.
  What did I just say? Interest rates already are moving up. They 
started up in February, they were up again yesterday, and it appears 
that they can move further.
  So in talking with CBO, I asked if they would help us extrapolate and 
if they would work with us, starting with the same guaranteed deficit--
because, let me tell you, what is in the Clinton budget, although it is 
a projection, you can bet it will not be any lower unless we can bring 
about cuts as proposed in the Domenici-Nunn amendment.
  But, in reality, if you take that guaranteed, fixed, minimum deficit, 
by the time you get out to 1999, we are going to have a $6.5 trillion 
debt, guaranteed, locked in. It is already planned. That is $2 trillion 
added to our $4.5 trillion or $4.6 trillion existing debt.
  Here is something. And this is a no-no, Mr. President. I took Jimmy 
Carter's interest rates--because it is something that we still 
remember; most of us were around during those days--and I applied them 
to the Clinton debt. And guess what we got? We got, by the year 1999, 
we follow this red line straight up to nearly a $500 billion annualized 
deficit; that is, with the very budget that is here on the floor today 
that we are debating, and just adjusting it for 1980 interest rates. No 
gamesmanship. That is reality.
  Now what does this spread mean in terms of the difference in deficits 
and in the interest charged on the debt structure? By 1999, the spread, 
the annual increase in spending, all of it deficit spending, on 
additional interest payments alone would be 46 percent of all 
discretionary moneys, 62 percent of the planned expenditure for Social 
Security, 98 percent of defense spending, and 167 percent of Medicaid. 
That is reality. That is how vulnerable we are to possible, even 
overnight, changes in economic conditions.
  That is why we have to support the deficit reduction in the package 
presented across the board in the Federal budget with the Domenici 
amendment. That is reality. Why fool ourselves any longer? These 
planned, and potentially much larger, deficits are Bill Clinton's 
burden. He ought to face it. He ought to work with us. So should the 
majority. Guard against reasonable changes in interest rates and other 
economic indicators. More and more debt is the reality of this budget. 
We cannot escape it, so let us deal with it.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate Concurrent Resolution 
63, the budget resolution for fiscal years 1995-99, as reported.


          one more argument for the balanced budget amendment

  Just a few weeks ago, when we debated Senate Joint Resolution 41, the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, opponents said that the 
budget could be balanced without a constitutional amendment.
  But the plan before us will not lead to a balanced budget--ever.
  Opponents to the balanced budget amendment challenged supporters with 
the mantra, ``Where's your plan?'' asking about the hard choices needed 
to work toward a balanced budget.
  Today, we see again that the opponents have no plan. This week's 
budget resolution is one more argument--the 57th argument in 65 years--
for why we need to add the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.


           deficits, debt in the stand-pat, status quo budget

  Some of us are ready to make significant reductions in the deficit, 
and supported the Domenici substitute this week. That alternative 
included pro-family, progrowth policies, real deficit reduction, and 
the middle-class tax cut the President promised when he was a 
candidate. I am disappointed that a majority passed up the chance to 
adopt that serious, thoughtful plan. Instead, we are left with Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 63, the stand-pat, big-debt budget resolution.
  The President and Senators on the other side of the aisle are 
defending the status quo and touting ``the first 3 consecutive years of 
deficit reduction since Harry Truman was President.''
  However, even under the best case scenario, the deficit reduction 
projected in this budget resolution is short term and temporary. Modest 
deficit reductions will be followed in 7 out of 8 years by growing 
deficits. Harry Truman would not have approved.

                                DEFICITS                                
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year--                   
                             -----------------------------------  5-year
                               1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Concurrent Resolution                                            
 63.........................    174    173    186    181    192      906
CBO March baseline\1\.......    174    176    192    187    213      944
Clinton budget (CBO)........    168    175    209    224    230    1,006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes emergency earthquake supplemental.                          

  The deficits planned in this budget resolution would have been even 
worse, had it not been for the Budget Committee's adoption of the 
bipartisan Exon-Grassley amendment, which trimmed an additional $43 
billion in budget authority and $26 billion in outlays over 5 years. I 
commend my colleagues for making at least some headway in committee.
  Even with the Exon-Grassley amendment, however, the fiscal year 1999 
deficit is only marginally lower than the $213 billion deficit in the 
Congressional Budget Office's March baseline--less than 10 percent 
lower. In fact, if tax revenues related to the administration's health 
care plan weren't included, this budget resolution's deficits would be 
larger than the baseline deficits.
  More ominously, this budget does nothing to address the major policy 
changes necessary to bring down deficits over the long term. CBO 
currently projected a deficit of $386 billion for fiscal year 2004--a 
projection that is already $21 billion above CBO's January baseline 
projection.
  We've heard much about the lean, mean Clinton budget. But let's look 
at the levels of debt that the President, according to his own numbers, 
promise to achieve:

          PROJECTED GROSS FEDERAL DEBT, END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR         
                         [Dollars in trillions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--                
                         -----------------------------------------------
                           1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt....................   4.676   4.960   5.267   5.601   5.954   6.305
Change year/year........    .325    .284    .307    .334    .352    .352
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              The Clinton Budget versus the Reagan Record

  We've heard from the other side that much of this debt is not 
President Clinton's fault, that he inherited it. They've said that the 
Nation is still reeling from the debts run up during the 1980's. But 
how does borrowing on President Reagan's watch compare with President 
Clinton's?
  President Clinton has submitted two budgets covering 6 fiscal years, 
1994-99. President Reagan submitted eight budgets, for fiscal years 
1982-89. Here's how their records compare:
  Gross Federal debt added during the first 4 years for which each 
submitted budgets:
  Reagan fiscal year 1982-85: $823 billion, actual; Clinton, fiscal 
year 1994-97: $1.250 trillion, budgeted.
  Gross Federal debt added during the first and last 6 years for which 
each submitted budgets:
  Reagan first 6 fiscal year 1982-87: $1.351 trillion, actual; Reagan 
last 6 fiscal year 1984-89: $1.496 trillion, actual; Clinton fiscal 
year 1994-99: $1.954 trillion, budgeted.
  Gross Federal debt added during all 8 years for which President 
Reagan submitted a budget: fiscal year 1982-89: $1.873 trillion actual.
  In other words, President Clinton has proposed to add more to the 
national debt in 6 years than actually was added during President 
Reagan's 8 years.
  One other thing is important to keep in mind. For 6 of his 8 years, 
President Reagan was hampered by gridlock. For just 2 years, in 1981-
82, there was enough bipartisan cooperation to enact and protect most 
of his budget cuts and tax relief. An 8-year run of record-breaking 
prosperity was the result.
  But in 1982, the other party regained full control of the House and 6 
long years of divided government followed. Partisan gridlock prevented 
any deficit reduction consensus from forming. Six times, President 
Reagan sent up budgets with significant spending cuts and deficit 
reduction, only to see congressional Democrats declare them DOA: Dead 
on arrival.
  I've always believed, and always said, that both parties and both 
branches bore responsibility for gridlock and deficits during the 
1980's. But let's remember our history accurately: The $1.496 trillion 
added to the debt in fiscal year 1984-89 were added because of 
gridlock.
  The 1992 Presidential election ended gridlock. The same party is 
firmly in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue now. This 
President's budgets may have items or policies that are MIA--missing in 
accounting--but they are not DOA.
  So, if this President and this congressional Democratic leadership 
wanted to slash the deficit and move toward balancing the budget, they 
could do so. But when we look at this budget resolution, we see that 
they have decided not to.
  In fact, 6 years of gridlock between President Reagan and the 
Democratic leadership produced 23 percent less debt than the 6-year 
increase in debt budgeted as a result of cooperation between President 
Clinton and the Democratic leadership.


                        projections are fragile

  But even this storm cloud of debt has a darker, more ominous lining. 
The nearly $2 trillion in new debt in the first 6 years of Clinton 
budgeting is only a projection. These and other current budget 
projections are based on, among other things, no economic downturn in 
the foreseeable future and a continuation of some of the lowest 
interest rates in 30 years.
  In other words, these projections are based on assumptions about 
future economic behavior that is dynamic and unpredictable. The 
economy, and as a result, budget and deficit projections, can change a 
little or a lot at any time.
  For example:
  CBO's re-estimate of the President's budget already shows deficits in 
every year that are higher than Office of Management and Budget 
projections, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal years--                       
                                                           ---------------------------------------------  5-year
                                                              1995     1996     1997     1998     1999          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differences...............................................      2.6      5.1     22.7     34.0     49.1    113.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Another example:
  In less than 2 months, January-March, CBO's projections of its own 
baseline deficits already have gone up by $46.8 billion over 5 years;
  Two additional examples appeared in this week's news:
  Orders to U.S. factories for durable goods--a leading indicator of 
the health of U.S. manufacturing--dropped 2.5 percent in February;
  The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System said 
Tuesday it would raise the Federal funds rate for short-term borrowing 
by 0.25 percent, following an identical increase on February 4, for a 
new rate of 3.5 percent.


              CLINTON DEFICITS PLUS CARTER INTEREST RATES

  Keeping in mind how subject to change economic and budget projections 
are, we should heed a warning from recent history.
  Currently, for the 1994-99 period, CBO and OMB have projected 
interest rates ranging from 3.6 percent to 4.7 percent on 3-month 
Treasury bills, and ranging from 5.8 percent to 6.2 percent on 10-year 
Treasury notes.
  But as recently as 1980, interest rates were above 11.5 percent on 3-
month T-bills and were 11.46 percent on 10-year T-notes.
  I remember all too well the ruinous effects that 1980 interest rates 
had on home buyers and business owners--and on Federal budget deficits. 
Like a number of my colleagues and many persons outside this body, I am 
struck by how optimistic our current interest rate projections really 
are.
  At it does every year, in its January Economic and Budget Outlook 
volume, CBO estimated how a 1 percent increase in interest rates would 
increase the deficit. We called a CBO, discussed their methodology, 
applied some of their rules of thumb, and produced this graph, which I 
ask unanimous consent to include in the Record.
  This graph shows approximately what would happen to Bill Clinton's 
deficits if interest rates returned to 1980 levels--Jimmy Carter 
interest rates.
  I will note that we produced our computations before the Budget 
Committee marked up its resolution; therefore, the President's budget 
was used as a point of reference. However, Senate Concurrent Resolution 
63 essentially is the President's budget and any differences are 
slight. Therefore, these alternative estimates, showing Clinton 
deficits adjusted for 1980 interest rates, are reasonable 
approximations and valuable for illustrative purposes.
  The year-by-year result are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year--                   
                             -----------------------------------  5-year
                               1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton deficits (CBO re-                                               
 estimate)..................    168    175    209    224    230    1,006
Clinton deficits adjusted                                               
 for Carter interest rates..    268    315    383    434    482    1,882
                             -------------------------------------------
Differnce (Increased                                                    
 interest costs)............    100    140    174    210    252      876
Clinton net interest (CBO re-                                           
 estimate)..................    213    229    240    251    262    1,195
                             -------------------------------------------
Total Clinton net interest..    313    369    414    461    514     2071
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Let's try to put these alternative estimates into perspective. If 
1980 interest rates returned this year and replaced currently projected 
interest rates on Treasury securities, that one change alone would:
  More than double the fiscal year 1999 deficit; almost double total 
deficit spending over the next 5 years; and almost double net interest 
spending in fiscal year 1999.
  None of this new deficit spending would be for programs or services 
or benefits; virtually all the increase would be in interest payments 
on the national debt. We know what those interest payments buy: 
Absolutely nothing. They are regressive transfers of wealth from 
middle- and working-class taxpayers to large institutions and wealthy 
foreigners.
  How large would these increases in interest costs really be? By FY 
1999, just the increase above baseline interest payments would be equal 
to: 46 percent of all discretionary spending in the budget resolution; 
62 percent of Social Security; 91 percent of all means-tested 
entitlements; 95 percent of Medicare; 98 percent of defense spending in 
the budget resolution; 167 percent of Medicaid; 280 percent of total 
federal civilian and military retirement; and 525 percent of the 
Education and Training function in the budget resolution.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle would say, this is a worst-
case scenario of what might happen if President Clinton is as unlucky 
as President Carter.
  I would say, it is a cautionary note. This is what could happen if 
Bill Clinton's policies prove to be as negative for the country's 
economy as Jimmy Carter's, and if the rest of the world starts to clamp 
down on Uncle Sam's unlimited line of credit.
  These alternative estimates are just as illustration, but they show 
what's possible--based on interest rates that we have experienced in 
the past.
  The analysis I have just outlined shows why: We should be passing a 
budget resolution with more deficit reduction than Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 63; current deficit projections may be more fragile and more 
optimistic than we realize; and passing the President's stand-pat, 
status quo budget is whistling in the dark.


                 real deficit reduction: who's on first

  The foregoing analysis also shows why the Senate should have passed 
the Domenici substitute, the 99-in-'99 plan. That plan would have 
produced a deficit of $99 billion in fiscal year 1999, less than half 
the baseline, Clinton, or committee levels; it would have reduced 
deficits by $318 billion over 5 years, more than 8 times as much as 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 63. The budget resolution assumes only $38 
billion in deficit reduction, and $26 billion of that is because of the 
Exon-Grassley amendment.
  The Domenici budget was pro-family and pro-growth. Several of its 
core provisions were based on S. 1576, introduced last year by Senators 
Coats, Hutchison, Lott, and myself, and also known as the FIRST bill, 
because it puts first things first. The name stands for the Family, 
Investment, Retirement, Savings, and Tax Fairness Act.
  I congratulate Senator Coats for bringing together the group of us 
who wrote the FIRST bill, and commend Senator Domenici, our leader, 
Senator Dole, and Budget Committee members on our side for including 
much of the FIRST bill in the Domenici substitute.
  A few weeks ago a minority of 37 Senators blocked the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution from going to the House and then to the 
States for ratification. Opponents kept asking supporters where our 
plan was to balance the budget by fiscal year 2001. Several of us did, 
and still do, have a plan: The FIRST bill. Just as our constitutional 
amendment will not go away until we pass it, neither will our FIRST 
bill.
  As the Senate began considering the balanced budget amendment, the 
Washington Times carried an op-ed by Senator Coats and this Senator. I 
ask unanimous consent to include the text of that article in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 22, 1994]

            Balanced Budget Amendment, Yes; Tax Increase, No

                     (By Dan Coats and Larry Craig)

       This week, the Senate will have before it a simple but 
     profound question: ``Should the Congress be required by the 
     Constitution to balance its budget?'' The issue is 
     straightforward and the American people have a vital interest 
     in the outcome.
       While there are arguments on both sides, there can be no 
     arguments about the urgency of our circumstances. Every child 
     born in America now inherits $17,000 in public debt. This is 
     the destructive legacy of a Congress without courage. It is a 
     failure of political will. It is a betrayal of moral 
     commitments.
       For decades the Congress has enjoyed the luxury of making 
     unlimited promises and financing them with unlimited debt. 
     Some have discovered the popularity of criticizing this debt, 
     secure in the knowledge that the budget process was rigged 
     politically to prevent real accountability. But now--with one 
     vote--Congress holds its credibility in its hands. In one 
     moment, we can prove our seriousness before a nation 
     suspicious of its government.
       Amending the Constitution is admittedly serious business--
     the most serious legislative act of which the Congress is 
     capable. The Constitution is the most basic social contract 
     between government and citizens. But the continued 
     accumulation of debt threatens the endurance of that 
     contract--an agreement not only with each other, but with our 
     children. A balanced budget amendment is a Constitution-class 
     solution for a Constitution-class crisis.
       The spending habits of Congress are simply too entrenched. 
     Deficit spending has always made political sense. It allows 
     Congress to please people in the present by placing burdens 
     on the future. The next generation, significantly, has no 
     vote in the next election.
       Critics of a balanced budget amendment have begun to issue 
     ominous warnings. As President Clinton's point man on 
     economic issues, Robert Rubin, recently said, ``We need to 
     save the country from this disaster.'' The possibility of 
     passage in the Senate has so alarmed Mr. Clinton that he 
     dispatched five Cabinet-level appointees to testify against 
     the amendment last week.
       The White House claims that the only way to get a balanced 
     budget by the turn of the century is by dramatic tax 
     increases or Draconian spending cuts. Their analysts say the 
     amendment will lead to new taxes or to the slashing of many 
     programs, including defense, and that drastic tax hikes would 
     throw America into recession. They claim that balancing the 
     budget would cost every American $700 in the year 2000, while 
     ignoring the fact that the average American today pays more 
     than $1,000 in taxes just to make interest payments on the 
     nation's debt.
       When it comes to raising taxes or gutting the Pentagon's 
     budget, we do not question that this president speaks with 
     authority. And we are glad the president acknowledges--
     belatedly--that raising taxes is akin to recession roulette. 
     However, the truth is we don't have to raise taxes or 
     eliminate every discretionary spending program to balance the 
     books.
       We have a plan that would balance the budget in eight 
     years. In addition, our plan provides and pays for a $500 tax 
     credit per child, a cut in the capital gains tax and several 
     other incentives for families to save and businesses to 
     invest.
       As Ronald Reagan once commented, ``for too long, government 
     has stood in the way of people taking home more of what they 
     earn, no matter how hard they try. It is economics without a 
     soul.''
       Our bill, which is called the Family, Investment, 
     Retirement, Savings and Tax Fairness Act (or ``FIRST'') 
     offers a blueprint for budget reform. It caps the growth of 
     federal spending at 2 percent (spending is currently growing 
     at an average of 4.5 percent a year). It creates a 
     commission, modeled after the base-closure commission, to 
     identify cuts needed to meet the cap.
       If Congress fails to approve the commission's plan by a 
     certain date, then across-the-board cuts would take place to 
     meet the cap (Social Security would not be affected, 
     however).
       Further, since American families are overtaxed, and because 
     high taxes rob families of the resources they need to care 
     for their children, the bill provides a $500 per child tax 
     credit. A $500 child tax credit will give a family of four 
     over $80 a month extra for groceries, school clothes for the 
     kids, or savings for education. It will empower families to 
     make more of their own choices and rely less on the 
     government. Fifty-one million children are eligible for this 
     credit. A $500 tax credit per child is real relief in tight 
     times.
       Our bill also recognizes that the private sector, not 
     government, creates jobs. We must reduce the cost of capital 
     and encourage productive investment by reducing the tax on 
     growth. We will find new jobs in a growing economy, not in a 
     growing government. FIRST provides incentives for businesses 
     to create jobs, including a reduced capital gains tax rate, a 
     neutral cost recovery plan for investments and expanded IRAs.
       So, yes, Mr. President, there is a plan--a plan that 
     reorders priorities to balance the budget and, at the same 
     time, allows families to keep more of their hard-earned 
     dollars and unleashes the productive power of the American 
     people. It is a plan that offers economics with a soul.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join with those who have spoken during 
consideration of this budget resolution and the impact that cuts in 
discretionary spending, as indicated in the Exon-Grassley provision, 
would have on the defense budget and our national security. I support 
the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], the 
ranking Republican on the Budget Committee and a highly respected and 
learned colleague on budgetary matters.
  In the Armed Services Committee over the past several weeks, we have 
heard from a number of our combatant commanders--the CINC's, who are 
responsible for going to war in their assigned parts of the world if 
war should come. We have also heard from the Secretaries of our 
military services and the Chiefs of each service.
  As I have listened to their testimony, it is clear that virtually 
without exception, the leaders of our military establishment are uneasy 
with the current level of funding for the Defense budget. While this 
administration has put a high priority on readiness and moved 
additional funds into some categories of readiness accounts, we are 
beginning to see, I believe, some of the first, early indicators that 
readiness problems are beginning to develop.
  General Joulwan, commander of the U.S. European Command expressed his 
concern about his command:

       They are meeting the challenge, but we are stretching our 
     people and our resources to the limit. I am particularly 
     concerned about the impact of unplanned and unbudgeted 
     contingency operations on operating accounts, training and 
     the quality of life for our troops and their families.

  Mr. President, virtually all of our combatant commanders and service 
Chiefs expressed their concern about taking funds from the defense 
budget to pay for the unplanned contingencies that continue to occur in 
this world of regional instability and continuing crises. Invariably, 
the military services end up taking funds for these contingencies out 
of their hide.
  In recent testimony before the Armed Services Committee, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps stated:

       Our ability to maintain, in the longer term, readiness is 
     on the margin and, as I reported to you last year, is 
     trending downward.

  General Mundy continued:

       We are not able to maintain fully the programs that support 
     our people or that maintain our equipment and our facilities 
     commensurate with the hard use to which we are putting them. 
     We cannot continue these trends, or the corps that your 
     forebears in these halls once referred to as the force in 
     readiness will be anything but that.

  Mr. President, the funding provided for modernization of our military 
services has been reduced drastically. The Army's research, 
development, and acquisition accounts have been reduced by 45 percent 
since fiscal year 1989--from $20.5 billion in fiscal year 1989 to $11.3 
billion in fiscal year 1995. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral 
Kelso pointed out in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee:

       We are asking to buy only 4 ships and 24 tactical aircraft 
     this year. Those numbers will not sustain the Navy at the 
     level our Nation will require in the future.

  General McPeak noted that the Air Force will buy only 4 combat 
aircraft this year.
  Mr. President, we all read the same newspapers and watch the same 
newscasts. Everyone here is aware of the peril that exists throughout 
the world. As we speak, we are facing real danger from an unpredictable 
and increasingly threatening North Korea. Are they developing nuclear 
weapons and a means to deliver them? North Korea is refusing access to 
the facts for the world to reach its own conclusions. The North Koreans 
have a large, well-equipped army that is poised for action on the 
demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. We have U.S. troops 
serving along the DMZ now. If the North Koreans launch an attack, 
American soldiers there will be immediately involved and we are 
committed to reinforcing the South Korean peninsula with a force 
similar in size to that we employed in Operation Desert Storm.
  Our military services are involved now throughout the world in a 
number of operations with great demands on our people, equipment, and 
operating funds. We are continuing extensive air and sea operations in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina to prevent air operations by belligerents in the 
area and to enforce the arms embargo. We are now in the process of 
completing our withdrawal from Somalia. We continue to provide support 
to the Kurds in northern Iraq and are flying extensive air missions in 
Operation Southern Watch to enforce the ``no-fly zone'' in southern 
Iraq. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General McPeak, appearing 
this month before our committee, stated, ``In Iraq, we have flown more 
than twice as many sorties since Desert Storm as we flew in Desert 
Storm.''
  The United States may be called upon any day to provide large numbers 
of our military to serve as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Congress must have 
a debate on this issue before the commitment is agreed to. Such a 
commitment would strain our personnel levels.
  Mr. President, virtually every senior military officer who has 
appeared before our committee this year has expressed concern about our 
ability to execute two near-simultaneous major regional contingencies 
as called for in the Bottom-Up Review. The state of our military 
airlift and sealift has been identified as inadequate and a major 
concern of our military leadership.
  The last point I would make is that the President of the United 
States, in his State of the Union Address this year, appealed to the 
Congress to make no further cuts in the Defense budget. He understands, 
as our Commander-in-Chief, how essential it is to have combat-ready 
military forces with the finest equipment and support we can provide 
them, prepared to respond to threats to our security and vital national 
interests. I urge all my colleagues to support the Domenici amendment 
to support our Commander-in-Chief, the men and women in our Armed 
Forces and our national security.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Domenici 
amendment. I do so for one simple reason. Senator Domenici's amendment 
would eliminate a $26 billion spending cut.
  Because of the Exon-Grassley amendment offered in Budget Committee, 
the budget before us today cuts substantially more than recommended by 
the President and cuts substantially more than a freeze would require. 
Last year, we appropriated $550 billion in nonentitlement funds. If 
this resolution passes, we will appropriate $540 billion--and stick at 
that level for the next 5 years.
  Senator Domenici's amendment would return appropriated spending in 
the budget to approximately the level suggested by the President. The 
Domenici amendment would add $26 billion to the amount the budget 
allows the Appropriations Committee to spend.
  I am surprised to find my friends on the other side of the aisle 
working so hard to defend the spending proposed by a Democratic 
President. I am surprised to see them working so hard to eliminate 
billions of dollars of spending cuts.
  The Domenici amendment is a clear demonstration that it is easier to 
talk about cutting spending than it is to actually do it. It is said 
that talk is cheap, but today talk is costing taxpayers billions of 
dollars. If the Domenici amendment passes, we will have talked 
ourselves out of one of the bravest spending cuts this body has ever 
seen.
  My colleagues know the statistics that argue for cutting spending: 
deficits of almost $200 billion ``as far as the eye can see;'' 
Government debt of $4.6 trillion; interest payments on the Federal debt 
that have become the Government's second largest expenditure.
  And the economy will respond to spending cuts. In today's Washington 
Post, Barry Bosworth, a renowned economist from the Brookings 
Institution, is quoted as saying that the economy could absorb an 
additional deficit reduction of $60 billion a year.
  We are not going to regain control of our budget with words. We ought 
to cut the deficit, and we ought to cut out empty speeches on the 
deficit. If you are in favor of retaining $26 billion in real spending 
cuts, speak with your vote, and join me in defeating the Domenici 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The managers' time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
consumed by the Senator from Idaho be charged against the time under 
the control of the minority on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with that.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order at this point to ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici 
amendment No. 1567.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici amendment No. 
1567.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the 
Senate is about to conduct at least four back-to-back rollcall votes 
beginning at 3:15. The first vote is going to be on or in relation to 
the Domenici amendment on appropriations and Medicare and direct 
spending cuts. The second vote will be on or in relation to the Mack 
amendment proposing a sense of the Senate regarding a spending 
commission. The third amendment will be on or in relation to the 
Hutchison amendment cutting the appropriations caps and making the 
assumption that savings will come out of the legislative branch. 
Fourth, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
buyout bill.
  Now if that fourth vote fails to invoke cloture, then there will be 
another cloture vote.
  I disseminate this information, Mr. President, for the information of 
colleagues who might be watching us on the television sets in their 
offices.

                          ____________________